Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews of comparative studies in autograft-based anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the AMSTAR-2 tool: A systematic umbrella review.

PURPOSE: There remains a lack of consensus around autograft selection in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), though there is a large body of overlapping systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Systematic reviews and their methodological quality were aimed to be further assessed, using a validated tool known as assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR-2). METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL were searched from inception to 23 April 2023 for systematic reviews (with/without meta-analysis) comparing primary ACLR autografts. A final quality rating from AMSTAR-2 was provided for each study ('critically low', 'low', 'moderate' or 'high' quality). Correlational analyses were conducted for ratings in relation to study characteristics. RESULTS: Two thousand five hundred and ninety-eight studies were screened, and 50 studies were ultimately included. Twenty-four studies (48%) were rated as 'critically low', 17 (34%) as 'low', seven (14%) as 'moderate' and two (4%) as 'high' quality. The least followed domains were reporting on sources of funding (1/50 studies), the impact of risk of bias on results of meta-analyses (11/36 studies) and publication bias (17/36 studies). There was a significant increase in the frequency of studies graded as 'moderate' compared to 'low' or 'critically low' quality over time (p = 0.020). CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of systematic reviews comparing autografts in ACLR is low, with many studies being rated lower due to commonly absent aspects of systematic review methodology such as investigating sources of funding and publication bias. More recent studies were generally more likely to be of higher quality. Authors are advised to consult AMSTAR-2 prior to conducting systematic reviews in ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

What's in a Name? Defining 'Failure' in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Graft failure, one of the most common outcomes in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction randomized controlled trials, lacks a consensus definition. The purpose of this study was to systematically summarize current practice and parameters in defining anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft 'failure'. RECENT FINDINGS: Forty studies (4466 participants) satisfied the inclusion criteria. Of these, 90% either defined failure formally or referenced the etiology of failure, the remaining 10% used the term failure without referencing the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft. Among the included studies, there was a high level of inconsistency between the definitions of graft failure. The extracted data was categorized into broader groups, revealing abnormal knee laxity (80%) and graft re-rupture (37.5%) as the most common parameters incorporated in the definitions of graft failure in high-level randomized controlled trials. This review shows that anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction randomized controlled trials lack a consistent definition for graft failure. A universal definition is vital for clarity in medical practice and research, ideally incorporating both objective (e.g. graft re-rupture) and subjective (e.g. validated questionnaires) parameters. A composite outcome should be established which includes some of the common parameters highlighted in this review. In the future, this review can be used to assist orthopaedic surgeons to establish a formal definition of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft 'failure'.

Robot-assisted partial knee replacement versus standard total knee replacement (RoboKnees): a protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty is a common surgery for end-stage knee osteoarthritis. Partial knee arthroplasty is also a treatment option for patients with arthritis present in only one or two knee compartments. Partial knee arthroplasty can preserve the natural knee biomechanics, but these replacements may not last as long as total knee replacements. Robotic-assisted orthopedic techniques can help facilitate partial knee replacements, increasing accuracy and precision. This trial will investigate the feasibility and assess clinical outcomes for a larger definitive trial. METHODS: This is a protocol for an ongoing parallel randomized pilot trial of 64 patients with uni- or bicompartmental knee arthritis. Patients are randomized to either receive robot-assisted partial knee arthroplasty or manual total knee arthroplasty. The primary outcome of this pilot is investigating the feasibility of a larger trial. Secondary (clinical) outcomes include joint awareness, return to activities, knee function, patient global impression of change, persistent post-surgical pain, re-operations, resource utilization and cost-effectiveness, health-related quality of life, radiographic alignment, knee kinematics during walking gait, and complications up to 24 months post-surgery. DISCUSSION: The RoboKnees pilot study is the first step in determining the outcome of robot-assisted partial knee replacements. Conclusions from this study will be used to design future large-scale trials. This study will inform surgeons about the potential benefits of robot-assisted partial knee replacements. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was prospectively registered on clinicaltrials.gov (identifier: NCT04378049) on 4 May 2020, before the first patient was randomized.